The idea this this is a silicon valley thing is funny to me since I didn't get asked to sign one until I came out here, and then when I refused the other party freaked out.
Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
211–220 of 242 posts
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see the connection. Right to Work laws say that workers can't be forced to join a union. They don't say that workers can't voluntarily join a union; so why should they say that workers can't voluntarily sign a non-compete?
Why should laws say employers can't voluntarily sign a union security agreement [0]? There's no force involved in either case - workers can choose not to work at a union shop, just like they can choose* not to work under a non-compete. *Until it becomes impossible to find a place without a non-compete. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Why should laws say employers can't voluntarily sign a union security agreement?
Because (at least pre-Hobby-Lobby) laws have historically prioritized the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations. An employer which compels their employees to join a union is signing away the rights of those employees, while an employee who signs a non-compete is only signing away their own rights.
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#213There's a new tactic non-supervisory coworkers can use to escape their non-compete BEFORE leaving their job, at noncompetes.org.
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main contract may have a clause it's only valid, if you also sign the NCA and NSA agreements. At least mine had.
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that any good one would advise you not to agree to anything you haven't read first. This is why you show contracts to lawyers before signing. You have to avoid unnecessary warranties, contingent agreements, hidden addendums, and other traps for the unwary. The contract should be the whole agreement, and ideally should also say that it is the whole agreement. Just cross that clau…
Not sure why you jumped to trickery. I got them handed at the same time, actually in the same DocuSign pdf. They were basically an addendum mentioned in the contract that required a separate signature, even though the signing was required by the main work contract and non-optional. I guess it's just a way to create a better overview like we split stuff in multiple files in programming.
The thing is you don't have much way to negotiate this stuff with companies of a certain size. It's done by their lawyer and everyone gets the same stuff. Just changing we wording on the relocation and signing bonus (because the original wording made absolutely no sense in my case) took over a week of mailing stuff between lawyers and the headquarters in a different country. It's take it or leave it. Crossing stuff out with your pen or not handing in some documents might even get you sued for deception.
Sure this is different for small companies without a big HR department that is hiring on a daily basis and without complicated legal department processes. There is a good chance they just skip the NDA/NSA if you object (seen it happen), when they think you are the best man for the job.
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
60% is a nice balance that leaves both sides unhappy. Which means that non-competes will be used sparingly; only in cases where it really means something. Sounds pretty smart to me.
If a wolf and a sheep are having a discussion over what to eat, is letting the wolf eat only 1 or 2 legs a nice balance because both sides are unhappy? Should one side be made happy when they have an unreasonable ask? If companies do not want you to work for competitors, they should be paying your salary for that time. Employees still lose out on things like keeping their skills sharp through work, or career growth,…
I think you're missing the point: it is a ban.
When poliicians pass laws though, there are often unintended consequences. Good politicians will intentionally create loopholes out of humility, realizing that they don't understand the entire issue and how it will affect everyone.
If the loopholes are too big, then thr policy will be ineffective and they will either need to tighten the loophole later, or scrap the whole policy as unworkable.
Do you think the ban is ineffective? Are there hordes of unhappy German citizens drawing 60% of their salary because they are unable to find better work without violating the non-compete? And tons of greedy companies making zillions of euros by paying people to not work?
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was given an nca, it was on my first day and I was put in an empty room with the materials and told I can't take them from the room. I tell you, when you're needing the job to provide for your family, there isn't much you can do there. EDIT: fortunately, the company made a very niche product so it would be hard to argue anywhere was competing with them.
If you ever tell a judge that the company refused to let you negotiate terms, review the documents with professional legal counsel, or make a copy for your own reference, I'm sure that will go over well in court for the company trying to pretend that they represent contracts~ Then you can discuss whether you actually received anything of value specifically for signing any particular document. Smartass or not, if you…
I recognize the ideal there, but as stated, I had to support my family and I needed the income. I was not exactly in a place where I could argue. I realize this would likely get thrown out in court, but that people get put in this position at all is ridiculous.
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#217Q: I'm willing to pay you $100,000 to sign a non-compete to work on the project with my company. If I don't pay, the non-compete isn't valid. Okay? A: No. Q: $500,000? A: No. Q: $1m? A: No. Q: $10m? A: Yes. The point being... the problem is NOT non-competes. The problem is the exchange of value. They serve a useful purpose in support of business risk-taking and investment. Make them fair, not unenforceable.
Terms become unenforceable when it's recognized by the courts that one party has so much negotiating power that true negotiations are impossible. A software engineer in the middle of SV might be able to demand $100k to sign a noncompete, but who else?
Unless you also add mandatory binding arbitration, then the courts are barred from deciding how enforceable the non-compete terms are.
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#218Odd that Right to Work laws don't ban non-competes. Edit: Added tags, just in case.
Is it possible "Right to Work" is a euphemism?
Its a whitewashing term carefully chosen. It is a right-wing goal to destroy unions as they might benefit of the lower or middle classes. As the rich and powerful do not serve the people, but only themselves, they favor laws that help companies, not workers.
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a wolf and a sheep are having a discussion over what to eat, is letting the wolf eat only 1 or 2 legs a nice balance because both sides are unhappy? Should one side be made happy when they have an unreasonable ask? If companies do not want you to work for competitors, they should be paying your salary for that time. Employees still lose out on things like keeping their skills sharp through work, or career growth,…
I think you're missing the point: it is a ban. When poliicians pass laws though, there are often unintended consequences. Good politicians will intentionally create loopholes out of humility, realizing that they don't understand the entire issue and how it will affect everyone. If the loopholes are too big, then thr policy will be ineffective and they will either need to tighten the loophole later, or scrap the whole…
>it is a ban
It literally is not a ban since it is allowed, and for less than the full compensation the employee would receive by working.
I am not discussing the efficacy as I haven't seen any numbers on how many non-competes are in effect in Germany. I am discussing the ethics of it
Re: Send Noncompete Agreements Back to the Middle Ages
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should laws say employers can't voluntarily sign a union security agreement [0]? There's no force involved in either case - workers can choose not to work at a union shop, just like they can choose* not to work under a non-compete. *Until it becomes impossible to find a place without a non-compete. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Why should laws say employers can't voluntarily sign a union security agreement? Because (at least pre-Hobby-Lobby) laws have historically prioritized the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations. An employer which compels their employees to join a union is signing away the rights of those employees, while an employee who signs a non-compete is only signing away their own rights.
The compulsion in both cases is exactly the same - pay union dues/sign non-compete, or find a new job.